Geographies of intransigence: freedom of speech and heteroactivist resistances in Canada, Great Britain and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freedom of speech is a key way in which sexual and gender politics are contested. Heteroactivism names the ways that these discourses seek to open up space to push back against sexual and gender equalities,We focus on three different countries where distinctive framings about freedom of speech are deployed in diverse ways . Taking a transnational approach that explores interlinkages in discourses that touch down differently in each context, this paper looks at how freedom of speech claims are operative on university campuses in Canada, Australia and Great Britain. In Canada, Professor Jordan Peterson’s freedom of speech claims arguably enable transphobic, anti-feminist and anti-LGBT speech. In Australia, university academic Roz Ward’s ability to express controversial opinions was attacked because she runs an innovative Safe Schools programme seeking to protect LGBT students. In Great Britain, contesting ‘No Platforming’ through freedom of speech saw arguments that crossed left/right, progressive/conservative, eventually seeing Peter Tatchell defend discrimination against ideas, but not people. Heteroactivism offers an important frame to understand the pushbacks against sexual and gender rights which are integral to liberal democracies such as those in the UK, Canada and Australia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".